This is not how lawyering works.
Not even for White House lawyers.
You don't get to contradict the Oval Office on a matter of client discretion. You either convince Trump to CHANGE his statement or you SHUT UP. You don't go out publicly and directly contradict the White House.
Not even for White House lawyers.
You don't get to contradict the Oval Office on a matter of client discretion. You either convince Trump to CHANGE his statement or you SHUT UP. You don't go out publicly and directly contradict the White House.
2/ Trump said "we'll see what happens"; no pardon decision "yet"; "people are very, very angry" about—he implies—DOJ's handling of the Flynn case.
That's what Cobb has to work with—his "there is no consideration being given" contradicts his client (the Office of the President).
That's what Cobb has to work with—his "there is no consideration being given" contradicts his client (the Office of the President).
3/ The only appropriate statement for Cobb to make is to outline the president's discretion when it comes to the pardon power, then refer reporters to the president's own comments. If Trump permitted, Cobb could come out and *amend* Trump's statement—but that's not what happened.
4/ Just know that this is not what lawyering is. When the president comes out and makes an inculpatory statement about pardoning Flynn that could later be used as evidence in an Obstruction trial, Cobb can't contradict that statement without saying Trump is amending his comments.
5/ Instead, you have Cobb seeming to amend the president's public statements without—it's clear—conferring with the president and getting approval to publicly amend his remarks. That puts Cobb in the position of a witness in any future Obstruction case, rather than a mere lawyer.
6/ An analogy: whether to take a criminal case to trial—as opposed to entering a plea—is within the discretion of the client. If a client comes out and says, "I've opted for trial!", his lawyer can't come out and say "No trial!" without explicitly amending the client's statement.
7/ Just as Congressional witnesses are asserting executive privilege *without* Trump ever asserting it, Cobb seeks to cleanse Trump's inculpatory words without Trump ever reversing himself. This means the rule of law is bending to TRUMP and not the other way around. Unacceptable.
8/ The solution to this problem—for the media—is a simple one: DO NOT REPORT comments by either Cobb or Dowd UNLESS they represent that they are doing what attorneys do, that is, speaking for their client. If and when Cobb and/or Dowd "freelance," it's definitionally *not* news.
9/ The only acceptable time to report a lawyer's words in a news article is when either the lawyer is the subject of the article or the lawyer *speaks for* the subject of the article. So which is it with Ty Cobb?
